They are actually a mechanism comprised of various independent technologies which together provide a means for achieving orbit in theory. Therefore as with rockets they are a system through which orbit can be achieved. Granted the critical technolgy (and one should note that it is actually only one technology) hasn't yet been proved to be achievable however that doesn't detract from the definition.

Anyway, that said, there probably isn't enough happening in the field (that I know about anyway) to maintain a blog on that one topic so I'll defer to you and check out the tech' threads.

I've got a few links relating to the subject however if you have some I would appreciate you sharing them.

I will have a look to Technology::Index later and list the SE-threads in this post by EDIT.

There also is a thread about the definition of technology or how that term is defined in different disciplines - this I will list also as an answer.

The points regarding a seperate section for Space Elevators are that such a section could be called for for other such approaches and ideas also and there could be an inflation of sections - which would reduce oversight awfully - and that I know of a particular froum about space elevators.

Ekke,
You've sent a bad link 'Synopsis Technology' but on the use of the term technology. Various dictionaries define technology in both a broad and a narrow sense and as a noun and as an adjective. Broad use of the term can encompass the entire scientific society that exists today or we can use the term more narrowly to describe a single scientific field eg. mechanical engineering although mechanical engineering also has it's specialist areas or technolgy areas.

I am using the term in a reasonably narrow sense when I talk about the ribbon being the only technolgy yet to be proved although encompassed in that term is all the technology that goes into development, manufacture, and deployment of carbon nanotubes being the material that seems most likely at this stage to be able to withstand the stresses of a 100,000km length from space to the Earth.

Using the same term more broadly we can talk about all the science required to develop, manufacture and support the space elevator as a single technolgy including rockets and in-space construction.

So context matters in this discussion and the use of the term technology depends on the context in which it is used.

Hence we are both right and have a win - win situation. Always the best outcome.

I have corrected the links just this moment and will do that in the Technology::Index section also when I find time for it - the wrong links are stemming from the time when there still were www.xprizenews.org havung a directory "forum" which now is "Forum".

I noticed today that they 'updated' their countdown by some years. They now expect to have a elevator by october 27 2031. What's the point of a countdown if you do not think you can make it or constantly have to push the date forward?

I know the old date was very unrealistic if plausible at all, but you need a BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal) to push yourself and technology to the limit.